get_judgment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add one behavioral detail: the judgment is assembled from chunks in chunk-index order. It does not mention error behavior, what happens if chunks are missing, or any access constraints, so transparency is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action, and all words earn their place. It is an appropriate length for such a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists, the definition lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and clarification of what 'chunks' means. An agent may infer the call shape from names, but it is not fully equipped to invoke the tool correctly in ambiguous cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how case_id or court are used. The property names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Reassemble') and a clear resource ('full judgment'), and explains the mechanism of ordering by chunk index. This is distinct from siblings like search_judgments (searching) and get_act (acts).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies use when a complete judgment text is needed, but it does not state when to prefer search_judgments or other alternatives, nor give explicit exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only inferable from the purpose statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.